Barristers strike over pay

[anonymous-user]

Murph7355 said:

BlackWidow13 said:

In your world, who in society should be responsible for ensuring that those who are accused of crimes and who have not enough money to pay for a lawyer get legal representation?

And why.

The way it's done now?

The debate comes down to how to fund a pay rise for criminal lawyers doing legal aid work....

a) not at all, they get enough over a career anyway
b) out of general taxation, where we already spend more than we receive
c) something else

I vote a combo of a and c. For c, get those who are using the legal system for things that are well funded to pay more so that money from it can be allocated to the bits that aren't, perhaps? So when wagathas go to court for a ding doing, say, don't bill them 1m, bill them 10m. Etc.

Your understanding of this subject is so poor and muddled that a sensible conversation isn’t possible.

[Square Leg]

I’m quite shocked at how little they earn early in their careers - considering I have two customers who are QC’s and both own property dotted around the country worth £m’s.

Actually, one is retired and the other a Tier 1 leading silk, but she is only late 50’s.
Stunning apartments in London…

ETA - realised the issue is criminal law / LA, which I don’t think they do (or did)

Edited by Square Leg on Tuesday 28th June 20:56

[Amateurish]

Murph7355 said:

The way it's done now?

The debate comes down to how to fund a pay rise for criminal lawyers doing legal aid work....

a) not at all, they get enough over a career anyway
b) out of general taxation, where we already spend more than we receive
c) something else

I vote a combo of a and c. For c, get those who are using the legal system for things that are well funded to pay more so that money from it can be allocated to the bits that aren't, perhaps? So when wagathas go to court for a ding doing, say, don't bill them 1m, bill them 10m. Etc.

Just so I'm clear, you're saying that the costs of criminal defence work should be paid for by people who are getting sued for libel? That's your plan?

[skwdenyer]

Murph7355 said:

BlackWidow13 said:

In your world, who in society should be responsible for ensuring that those who are accused of crimes and who have not enough money to pay for a lawyer get legal representation?

And why.

The way it's done now?

The debate comes down to how to fund a pay rise for criminal lawyers doing legal aid work....

a) not at all, they get enough over a career anyway
b) out of general taxation, where we already spend more than we receive
c) something else

I vote a combo of a and c. For c, get those who are using the legal system for things that are well funded to pay more so that money from it can be allocated to the bits that aren't, perhaps? So when wagathas go to court for a ding doing, say, don't bill them 1m, bill them 10m. Etc.

a) is abject nonsense. Barristers aren't, by and large, generalists; they can't just swap from doing legal aid criminal work one day to some juicy corporate gig the next. So "enough over a career" is plainly nonsense - they would earn more driving trains.

c) is cloud cuckoo land. Civil justice is already enormously expensive and inaccessible to many / most. You're proposing that civil cases be "taxed" in some way to provide money for the criminal justice system?

It does rather sound like you don't understand how our system actually works.

There *is* potentially an argument for a "public defender's office" affair, but that would require a very significant shift in our current ways of working.

Like it or not, with inflation at close to 10%, pay is going to have to rise across the board. You can't just refuse to fix barristers' pay for years and years simply because "the system" allows you to get away with it. Those people striking are prepared to directly sacrifice their careers (with the LCJ taking names and threatening sanctions) - that's a pretty good measure of how far it has got, I feel.

And, no, IANAL.

[anonymous-user]

Amateurish said:

Soir said:

Worked in a barristers chambers (junior clerk) in the 90’s no-one was earning the figures quoted. One pupil earned £90k in his first year (worked his socks off) and lots earned £m

Senior clerk was on about £150k and this was 25 years ago! A senior clerk from another large Chambers down the road drove a Ferrari

That said, I have no idea what percentage of work was legal aid

Which chambers?

+1

Pupil pay at the very top commercial sets just hit a record 75k so a) sounds, um, optimistic and b) lots making millions isn't criminal bar

Also c) yes clerks, like money brokers, have always been very generously paid and that comes out of the barristers pay.

[andy_s]

skwdenyer said:

Like it or not, with inflation at close to 10%, pay is going to have to rise across the board.

Isn't that how you make inflation worse?

[Murph7355]

Amateurish said:

Just so I'm clear, you're saying that the costs of criminal defence work should be paid for by people who are getting sued for libel? That's your plan?

No, it's not a "plan"...it was suggesting channels that might yield funding opportunities to cover extra costs elsewhere. Otherwise, presumably, increases need to come from general taxation (nurses, teachers, shop assistants etc etc...as well as fat cat bankers et al).

skwdenyer said:

a) is abject nonsense. Barristers aren't, by and large, generalists; they can't just swap from doing legal aid criminal work one day to some juicy corporate gig the next. So "enough over a career" is plainly nonsense - they would earn more driving trains.

c) is cloud cuckoo land. Civil justice is already enormously expensive and inaccessible to many / most. You're proposing that civil cases be "taxed" in some way to provide money for the criminal justice system?

It does rather sound like you don't understand how our system actually works.

There *is* potentially an argument for a "public defender's office" affair, but that would require a very significant shift in our current ways of working.

Like it or not, with inflation at close to 10%, pay is going to have to rise across the board. You can't just refuse to fix barristers' pay for years and years simply because "the system" allows you to get away with it. Those people striking are prepared to directly sacrifice their careers (with the LCJ taking names and threatening sanctions) - that's a pretty good measure of how far it has got, I feel.

And, no, IANAL.

On a), salaries don't stay static, looking at the figures I've seen.

Is 65k a year a lot? Depends on many things...it's more than double the average salary in the country, so it's not a pittance.

Should people be paid more for doing that work? That also depends. There are plenty of public service jobs that I think, in a "fair" society would get paid more. Nobody seems to want to pay more taxes to cover that increase, however.

On c), I don't understand the system to any depth. Fortunately I've yet to get close to needing to and doubt very much that I'd be covered by legal aid....and hence barristers getting paid the lower amounts I assume (?).

But as noted above, what's the alternative? Generic addition to taxation rates? Charge motorists or some other subset more to cover the costs? If those principles are OK, why would extracting more from other more...."profitable" areas of the legal system also not be fair game?

I don't think current inflation rates are a default reason for pay to increase "across the board". Not even close. The money has to come from somewhere to pay for it. And if a large chunk of the inflation currently at play globally is expected to be very transient, which I believe it is, then what? Don't heftier wage rises now just risk fuelling further inflation later?

[I Know Nothing]

According to a google search 2% of barristers get paid over a million £, while 12% get paid less then £30,000, average pay is £54,000 while the average pay of a solicitor is £45,000.

Whenever I dealt with solicitors and barristers they were chargeing £250+ an hour, letters would be £100, they even charged a fortune for tel calls.

So who gets all the money?

[MesoForm]

I Know Nothing said:

According to a google search 2% of barristers get paid over a million £, while 12% get paid less then £30,000, average pay is £54,000 while the average pay of a solicitor is £45,000.

Whenever I dealt with solicitors and barristers they were chargeing £250+ an hour, letters would be £100, they even charged a fortune for tel calls.

So who gets all the money?

The barristers you’re paying aren’t the ones striking, the ones who are striking are the ones who represent people in court that can’t afford to pay for a lawyer themselves. These barristers get a set fee per case from the government to represent the defendants, it’s this fee that’s the issue.

[valiant]

I Know Nothing said:

According to a google search 2% of barristers get paid over a million £, while 12% get paid less then £30,000, average pay is £54,000 while the average pay of a solicitor is £45,000.

Whenever I dealt with solicitors and barristers they were chargeing £250+ an hour, letters would be £100, they even charged a fortune for tel calls.

So who gets all the money?

Commercial barristers are paid completely differently to what a criminal barrister gets paid.

I’m assuming you dealt with the former?

[ZedLeg]

BlackWidow13 said:

Murph7355 said:

BlackWidow13 said:

In your world, who in society should be responsible for ensuring that those who are accused of crimes and who have not enough money to pay for a lawyer get legal representation?

And why.

The way it's done now?

The debate comes down to how to fund a pay rise for criminal lawyers doing legal aid work....

a) not at all, they get enough over a career anyway
b) out of general taxation, where we already spend more than we receive
c) something else

I vote a combo of a and c. For c, get those who are using the legal system for things that are well funded to pay more so that money from it can be allocated to the bits that aren't, perhaps? So when wagathas go to court for a ding doing, say, don't bill them 1m, bill them 10m. Etc.

Your understanding of this subject is so poor and muddled that a sensible conversation isn’t possible.

The funny thing about a is it completely misses the point.

The lawyers aren’t being paid enough to live on now, how is saying “you’ll make it up later” remotely useful. They could drive themselves into even more debt to buy fripperies like food and shelter with the assurance that they can pay it back later I guess.

[Amateurish]

fblm said:

Amateurish said:

Soir said:

Worked in a barristers chambers (junior clerk) in the 90’s no-one was earning the figures quoted. One pupil earned £90k in his first year (worked his socks off) and lots earned £m

Senior clerk was on about £150k and this was 25 years ago! A senior clerk from another large Chambers down the road drove a Ferrari

That said, I have no idea what percentage of work was legal aid

Which chambers?

+1

Pupil pay at the very top commercial sets just hit a record 75k so a) sounds, um, optimistic and b) lots making millions isn't criminal bar

Also c) yes clerks, like money brokers, have always been very generously paid and that comes out of the barristers pay.

£90k for a pupil in the 90s is clearly nonsense.

When I was applying for pupillage in 2001, most pupillages were unpaid, certainly for criminal work. I think that the top commercial sets were paying £30k or so.

Maybe Soir is thinking of a "junior" rather than a pupil. They could conceivably have made £90k+ at a top set.

[Murph7355]

ZedLeg said:

The funny thing about a is it completely misses the point.

The lawyers aren’t being paid enough to live on now, how is saying “you’ll make it up later” remotely useful. They could drive themselves into even more debt to buy fripperies like food and shelter with the assurance that they can pay it back later I guess.

Some aren't being paid enough now. (Which is why I didn't say all (a) ).

The real nub of it is how that specific problem should be addressed (and the same thing goes for nurses, teachers and myriad other public servants, as well as the lower paid in the private sector).

A "inflation is currently 10% therefore wages across the board need to rise" is not sustainable, IMO. Unless GDP/taxation (the two things being pretty strongly correlated...and us current being at the upper end of the curves on that) are also rising by 10%. Is everyone prepared to pay 10% more tax? I very much doubt it (the usual answer is that everyone else should pay 20%, 30% etc more tax).

[deckster]

Murph7355 said:

Some aren't being paid enough now. (Which is why I didn't say all (a) ).

The real nub of it is how that specific problem should be addressed (and the same thing goes for nurses, teachers and myriad other public servants, as well as the lower paid in the private sector).

A "inflation is currently 10% therefore wages across the board need to rise" is not sustainable, IMO. Unless GDP/taxation (the two things being pretty strongly correlated...and us current being at the upper end of the curves on that) are also rising by 10%. Is everyone prepared to pay 10% more tax? I very much doubt it (the usual answer is that everyone else should pay 20%, 30% etc more tax).

This is nothing to do with inflation. This is a historic and very specific problem that is causing a real, measurable problem with our judicial system. We have a huge backlog of criminal cases in the court system, which is partially (not wholly) caused by a shortage of barristers to allow the cases to go ahead. Let's be clear, these barristers are not simply striking because they want more money. They are striking because they aren't being paid enough to live, which means that people are leaving the profession and also newly qualified barristers are not choosing criminal law, because - well, why would you when you can earn ten times as much in other branches of the law. They are striking because the system as it stands is being catastrophically damaged by lack of funding.

Fixing this will cost peanuts in the grand scheme of things. We are talking about a rounding error in our judicial budget.

Unfortunately, increasing legal aid rates to something approaching reasonable won't be an instant fix, as we already have a shortage of criminal barristers and it takes some time to train up new ones. But we either need to make the criminal bar an attractive career option for young lawyers, or we need to change our entire approach to publicly funded defenders. I'm pretty sure I know which is the cheaper and quicker option.

[ZedLeg]

I'd pay another 10% tax if I knew that it was going to go to public sector workers and/or helping others who are struggling.

I think a better first move would be to increase minimum wage so that the government weren't subsidising private company wages with tax credits for low paid workers, then use that money to pay people doing work in the public sector better.

the money's there, we just need a government that'll spend it where needed rather than on enriching themselves and people who've earned their favour.

[Electro1980]

Murph7355 said:

Some aren't being paid enough now. (Which is why I didn't say all (a) ).

The real nub of it is how that specific problem should be addressed (and the same thing goes for nurses, teachers and myriad other public servants, as well as the lower paid in the private sector).

A "inflation is currently 10% therefore wages across the board need to rise" is not sustainable, IMO. Unless GDP/taxation (the two things being pretty strongly correlated...and us current being at the upper end of the curves on that) are also rising by 10%. Is everyone prepared to pay 10% more tax? I very much doubt it (the usual answer is that everyone else should pay 20%, 30% etc more tax).

There have been below inflation pay rises for the past 15 years. Surely you can see that this is also unsustainable. We can’t just keep paying people less for doing the same work.

The issue in the public sector is the government has failed to invest as capital expenditure is easy to punt down the road. They have therefor failed to make use of efficiency and built in inefficient temporary fixes, what in IT is called technical debt. And that debt is growing and growing.

But that is not the fault of the workers, and we have upwards pressure on middle income wages. If something isn’t done we will have major issues in justice, education, and healthcare, and they are issues where people can leave tomorrow for another job and you can’t just entice them back later. CPD will mean even getting those same people back would take time.

[anonymous-user]

I wouldn’t bother with Murph. He’s borderline trolling this thread (eg: increasing all public sector pay by 10% doesn’t mean increasing the tax take by 10%, unless, of course, central Govt’s sole expenditure is public sector pay).

The Secret Barrister has an excellent explanation of what’s going on, and why, here: https://thesecretbarrister.com/2022/06/27/the-crim...

It is well worth five minutes of anyone’s time.

[Pat H]

deckster said:

This is nothing to do with inflation. This is a historic and very specific problem that is causing a real, measurable problem with our judicial system. We have a huge backlog of criminal cases in the court system, which is partially (not wholly) caused by a shortage of barristers to allow the cases to go ahead. Let's be clear, these barristers are not simply striking because they want more money. They are striking because they aren't being paid enough to live, which means that people are leaving the profession and also newly qualified barristers are not choosing criminal law, because - well, why would you when you can earn ten times as much in other branches of the law. They are striking because the system as it stands is being catastrophically damaged by lack of funding.

Fixing this will cost peanuts in the grand scheme of things. We are talking about a rounding error in our judicial budget.

Unfortunately, increasing legal aid rates to something approaching reasonable won't be an instant fix, as we already have a shortage of criminal barristers and it takes some time to train up new ones. But we either need to make the criminal bar an attractive career option for young lawyers, or we need to change our entire approach to publicly funded defenders. I'm pretty sure I know which is the cheaper and quicker option.

Criminal Legal Aid solicitor here

I'm a 53 year old sole practitioner with 27 years in the job. I originally qualified as a barrister, but soon gave that up. I just couldn't make ends meet. I sold my wig and gown, did the qualified lawyers' transfer test and have worked ever since as a solicitor.

Broadly speaking I've enjoyed my time. It's been hard work, but back in the day you could make a comfortable living out of it. Comparable perhaps to a GP's salary. I've owned some lovely old cars, all paid for by the Legal Aid Agency. I have no complaints.

But those halcyon days are long gone. The last 10-15 years have been a catastrophe for the profession. My annual taxable profit is perhaps one third of what it used to be. Personally, I'm not that bothered. I had a decent crack of the whip when times were good. I'm going to do maybe 5 more years before I pull down the shutters, unless a distant relative leaves me an inheritance, in which case I will be gone tomorrow.

I've lost count of the number of Criminal Legal Aid firms that have gone bust.

A big problem is the lack of new blood. Lots of my erstwhile colleagues have retired early, buggered off to become teachers, joined the CPS, descended into alcoholism or have kicked the bucket. The rate of attrition is very high.

Those of us left are increasingly geriatric. I reckon that maybe half a dozen newly qualified barristers have joined my local criminal bar in the last 10 years. And I work in one of the big regional cities. There is a demographic time bomb about to go off.

The profession is rapidly losing some fantastic criminal lawyers. These people are pretty much impossible to replace, because the pay and conditions are now ridiculously poor. The money isn't awful in absolute terms. But compared to what you could earn elsewhere the rates are comically low.

Some of the newbies will make good lawyers, but the standard of advocacy in my local magistrates' courts is pretty dire. A lot of them couldn't be trusted to sit the right way round on a toilet, let alone provide effective representation. The only lawyers joining the criminal defence world are those who desperately want to be a criminal lawyer, or those so crap that no one else will employ them.

I'm slightly ashamed to admit cherry picking the work I am prepared to do these days.

How about a fixed fee of less than £200 for representing a burglar who pleads guilty at the Crown Court? £180 for providing advice to a chap being interviewed on suspicion of murder? Sod that for a game of soldiers.

I'm looking forward to hanging up my boots. The day can't come soon enough. It's rather sad, because I have had some great times and the work has been challenging and inspiring.

But the job's had it. The system is completely broken. Soon there won't be anyone left to pick up the pieces and no one left to show the next generation how it should be done. Not that there's likely to be a next generation of criminal legal aid lawyers. They will all be doing commercial litigation, which is precisely what I would be doing if I was 20 years younger.

I will be gone soon. And no one's going to replace me.

[Pixelpeep 135]

Electro1980 said:

Pixelpeep 135 said:

if i feel my work isn't paying me enough i'll put my case forward (example job adverts, history of good work etc) - if they don't agree and i feel strongly enough i will look for a better paid job.

And how exactly do you suggest people being paid by the government put their case forward?

I work for the Government.

[Electro1980]

Pixelpeep 135 said:

Electro1980 said:

Pixelpeep 135 said:

if i feel my work isn't paying me enough i'll put my case forward (example job adverts, history of good work etc) - if they don't agree and i feel strongly enough i will look for a better paid job.

And how exactly do you suggest people being paid by the government put their case forward?

I work for the Government.

In what capacity? The vast majority are on fixed pay scales. I’m guessing you are either senior enough to be not on a scale, or a contractor?

Edited by Electro1980 on Wednesday 29th June 11:28